User:MDWebb5/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Political communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because after a quick browse of the information, I found that I do not know much about the subject and could learn some new information about the connection between politics and communication.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

The lead section of the article does a great job at introducing the topic of political communication and provides enough detail to allow the reader to understand what is about to be discussed. A formal breakdown of the article's major sections is not present, however, most of section's topics are mentioned and given a small description. No information present is absent within the actual article. Overall, the lead paragraph is to the point and provides just the right amount of detail to set up the rest of the article.

Content

The information presented within the article is directly related to the topic of the piece and does not get caught on tangents irrelevant to the main idea. Examining the dates of the sources used shows that a good bit of the information is over ten years old, even twenty. This is a little outdated considering how ideas like the ones mentioned correlate to changes in society that happen every few years. One of the sections of the article "Fields and areas of study", is not mentioned within the lead section and while it does grant some bits of interesting information, is not directly needed for the discussion. The article does not directly discuss any of Wikipedias equity gaps but does bring to light the connection between political communication and individuals of the Middle East, who have been affected by a lack-there-of.

Tone and Balance

The overall tone of the article is neutral and does not overly favor or criticize one side of the discussion- a strong quality given the topic revolves around political ideas. The article makes various claims for and against certain parties, including the discussion about the Bush Administration and the Abu Ghraib case. However this is backed by sources and the author seems to simply be providing an example, rather than taking a side. Any fringe viewpoints are directly backed by a source or are a direct quote from an individual other than the author. Generally, the article does not attempt to persuade readers, instead provides a basis of information about political communication without taking a specific side.

Sources and References

Nearly all of the facts written in the article are backed up by valid sources. There are a mix of websites (not preferable), journal articles, and scholarly books. Twenty-four sources are present demonstrating a solid breadth of the topic discussed. Some current sources are utilized, however, a decent amount of the sources used are out-of-date and some are over twenty years old. All of them though include a diverse group of authors with many different viewpoints on a topic. Given that a few of the sources are outdated and some opinionated websites are used, one would assume that more relevant and better pieces of information are available. All of the links checked worked. There is a banner present that warns about using certain constructs related to footnotes present in the article. As far as I could tell, this did not directly interfere with proper citing or location of such.

Organization and writing quality

The article is quite well written and easy to follow from idea to idea, aided by the subsections present. No spelling errors were present, but a few grammatical issues are there including improper use of single quotations ('...').

Images and Media

Only one image is present within the article at the very beginning about the Bush Administration. The image deals with one piece of information discussed early on, and faintly relates to the topic in which the image is inserted. It is captioned well, adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and is placed in a visually appealing position. There is definitely possibility for more pictures throughout the article that would help the readers understanding and make the article that much more appealing to read through.

Talk page discussion

There are three discussion posts about the article. One is a question to, I assume the author, if they are able to add a piece of information. The other two posts in the talk page are dealing with plans to edit the article, specifically within the section talking about the implications of social media on modern-day political communication. The article is rated as a "level-5 vital article" and is a part of three separate wiki project on politics, media, and telecommunications. The article was additionally the topic of a "Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment." One way in which Wikipedia discusses this topic different from how we talked in class is that it praises the use of social media for this type of communication, when in class, we discussed the problems social media directly has on communication.

Overall impressions

Personally, I enjoyed reading the article and fulfilled my goal of learning something new. The author did a great job at discussing political communication in a way that the general populous could understand. Furthermore, the flow and division of the article was good and contributed to the reading experience. A few improvements could be made though. First, more pictures could be used throughout the article to enhance the piece and provide further points of information. Pictures often help avoid confusion. Second, many of the sources are outdated and could be replaced with more relevant ideas as the political sphere is rapidly evolving. Finally, the article could dive deeper and provide more examples of political communication in practice instead of just the United States, the United Nations, and the Middle East. This would develop the article even more and strengthen the discussion.